US President-elect Donald Trump has chosen a highly decorated retired three-star general, to serve as his special envoy for Ukraine and Russia. Login or signup to continue reading Keith Kellogg, who is one of the architects of a policy book laying out an "America First" national security agenda for the incoming administration, will come into the role as Russia's invasion of Ukraine enters its third year in February. Trump made the announcement on his Truth Social account, saying "He was with me right from the beginning! Together, we will secure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, and Make America, and the World, SAFE AGAIN!" Kellogg, an 80 year-old retired Army lieutenant general who has long been Trump's top adviser on defence issues, served as national security adviser to Vice President Mike Pence, was chief of staff of the National Security Council and then stepped in as an acting security adviser for Trump after Michael Flynn resigned. The White House has pushed more than $56 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Russia's February 2022 invasion and expects to send billions more to Kyiv before President Joe Biden leaves office in less than months. Trump has criticised the billions the Biden administration has poured into Ukraine. The incoming Republican president has said he could end the war in 24 hours, comments that appear to suggest he would press Ukraine to surrender territory that Russia now occupies. As a co-chairman of the American First Policy Institute's Centre for American Security, Kellogg wrote several of the chapters in the group's policy book. In April, he wrote that "bringing the Russia-Ukraine war to a close will require strong, America First leadership to deliver a peace deal and immediately end the hostilities between the two warring parties." Trump's proposed national security adviser Michael Waltz tweeted on Wednesday that "Keith has dedicated his life to defending our great country and is committed to bringing the war in Ukraine to a peaceful resolution." Kellogg was a character in multiple Trump investigations dating from his first term. He was among the administration officials who listened in on the July 2019 call between Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy in which Trump prodded the Ukrainian leader to pursue investigations into the Bidens. The call, which Kellogg would later say did not raise any concerns on his end, was at the centre of the first of two House impeachment cases against Trump, who was acquitted by the Senate both times. On January 6, 2021, hours before pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol, Kellogg, who was then Pence's national security adviser, listened in on a heated call in which Trump told his vice president to object or delay the certification in Congress of President Joe Biden 's victory. He later told House investigators that he recalled Trump saying to Pence words to the effect of: "You're not tough enough to make the call." Australian Associated Press DAILY Today's top stories curated by our news team. Also includes evening update. WEEKDAYS Grab a quick bite of today's latest news from around the region and the nation. WEEKLY The latest news, results & expert analysis. WEEKDAYS Catch up on the news of the day and unwind with great reading for your evening. WEEKLY Get the editor's insights: what's happening & why it matters. WEEKLY Love footy? We've got all the action covered. WEEKLY Every Saturday and Tuesday, explore destinations deals, tips & travel writing to transport you around the globe. WEEKLY Get the latest property and development news here. WEEKLY Going out or staying in? Find out what's on. WEEKDAYS Sharp. Close to the ground. Digging deep. Your weekday morning newsletter on national affairs, politics and more. WEEKLY Follow the Newcastle Knights in the NRL? Don't miss your weekly Knights update. TWICE WEEKLY Your essential national news digest: all the big issues on Wednesday and great reading every Saturday. WEEKLY Get news, reviews and expert insights every Thursday from CarExpert, ACM's exclusive motoring partner. TWICE WEEKLY Get real, Australia! Let the ACM network's editors and journalists bring you news and views from all over. AS IT HAPPENS Be the first to know when news breaks. DAILY Your digital replica of Today's Paper. Ready to read from 5am! DAILY Test your skills with interactive crosswords, sudoku & trivia. Fresh daily!

Russia's Vast Ukrainian 'Kill List' Revealed: Kyiv, the world’s wealthiest man and President-elect Donald Trump’s ” took to his social media platform X to ominously accuse the key witness in Trump’s first impeachment of treason while calling for him to “pay the appropriate penalty.” Musk, who has been tasked by Trump to lead an outside agency on government efficiency , took issue on Wednesday with comments made by former National Security Council official during an appearance on MSNBC. Vindman, who in 2019 that Trump pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch an investigation into then-presidential candidate Joe Biden, cited that Musk had been engaged in secret conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin dating back to 2022. He then expressed concerns that Musk, who has through his SpaceX, Tesla and Starlink companies, may have shared “state secrets” with Putin. “And [Putin’s] been using the richest man in the world to do his bidding. In some cases, that’s encouraging him probably to support Donald Trump,” Vindman told MSNBC. “That’s not speculation. We see how far in Elon has gone. And then using Twitter as a disinformation platform.” Reacting to a of Vindman’s remarks, Musk : “Vindman is on the payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs and has committed treason against the United States, for which he will pay the appropriate penalty.” According to , the penalty for treason — which is defined by the Constitution as levying war against the United States or adhering to the nation’s enemies — is death, or no fewer than five years imprisonment. Anyone convicted of treason also forfeits their right to hold public office. Unsurprisingly, a number of political observers and journalists expressed outrage over Musk’s remarks, especially since he is so closely intertwined with the incoming administration. “Oh nothing, just a person deeply integrated into the incoming administration’s center of power calling for the execution of one of his critics,” The Unpoulist’s senior editor Berny Belvedere on Bluesky. “Lying about a private citizen and making a not-so-veiled threat that he will be executed,” The Bulwark’s executive editor Adam Keiper . “And the person doing it is the richest guy in the world, a major government contractor, who is new besties with the convicted-felon president-elect. Do I have that right?” While Musk would later clarify his threat in a , claiming that Vindman “has committed treason and belongs behind bars,” he still hasn’t explained how Vindman is a traitor to the U.S. or what proof he has that the retired Army officer is on the “payroll of Ukrainian oligarchs.” has reached out to both Vindman and Musk for comment. Republicans and conservative media, meanwhile, have Vindman of holding “dual loyalty,” citing the fact that his family fled Soviet-era Ukraine when he was 3 years old. After Vindman before the House impeachment inquiry about Trump’s actions towards Zelensky, Fox News hosts and GOP lawmakers said he “has an affinity for Ukraine” while suggesting he was simultaneously advancing Ukrainian interests while working in the White House. As reported by The Intercept at the time, the leaned heavily on antisemitic tropes, especially since Vindman himself is Jewish. This also isn’t the first time that Musk has questioned the loyalties of Vindman, who has been a frequent critic of both Trump and the X owner. “Vindman is both puppet & puppeteer. Question is who pulls his strings,” Musk wondered in 2022 after Vindman commented on Musk’s purchase of Twitter. “Musk’s tweet — deliberately or not — evoked an antisemitic trope that Jews are puppeteers who secretly wield power over various institutions or that they are puppets of the Israeli government,” at the time.

Terminally Ill Borderlands Fan Gets Early Access to Borderlands 4: It Was AmazingThe Latest: State funeral for Jimmy Carter will be Jan. 9The Latest: State funeral for Jimmy Carter will be Jan. 9

News snippets from the European press

( MENAFN - Gulf Times) At this time of year, many people pause to reflect on the true meaning of philanthropy, asking themselves: What is the best way to give? To whom should I give? And, perhaps most importantly, why should I give? Fifteen years ago, I published Dead Aid: Why Aid Is Not Working and How There Is a Better Way for Africa. I argued that government-to-government aid, rather than fuelling economic growth, inadvertently harms the very countries it is meant to help. Since then, philanthropists have often sought my advice about their desire to grapple with seemingly intractable challenges, such as extreme poverty or climate change. In this season of giving, donors should ask themselves 12 key questions when considering how, where, and why to give. The first question is relatively straightforward: What motivates you? Are you looking to spread joy – for example, by supporting the arts – or alleviate suffering by aiding communities affected by war or natural disasters? Both approaches are vital and commendable. Second, how can you use your time and financial resources effectively? In a world of competing needs, it's not just how much we give but how we do it that ultimately determines our ability to effect positive change. For example, consider a philanthropist with $100mn to donate. While allocating the entire amount to improving education could result in better-resourced schools, students might still struggle to attend due to poor health, inadequate transportation, or malnutrition. Recognising this, the philanthropist might choose to divide the $100mn among initiatives supporting education, health, food, and transportation. Yet splitting the funds equally – allocating $25mn to each cause – will inevitably dilute the impact. Such an approach might be enough to prevent conditions from getting worse, but it is unlikely to drive transformative change. The third question to consider is whether to delegate decision-making to an established organisation or create your own philanthropic foundation. Both strategies come with tradeoffs. Delegating enables you to harness the skills and expertise of teams with proven track records, but there is always a risk that the organisation you support will fail to achieve its goals – or worse, exacerbate the problem. Building and managing an organisation gives you the freedom to pursue your personal goals and vision. But over time, this entity's culture, norms, and bureaucratic processes can diverge – and even conflict – with its founding mission. As employees become focused on advancing their own careers, the problem the organisation was created to address may become a justification for its existence rather than something to be resolved. Fourth, what is your time frame? Do you expect immediate results, or are you willing to wait for years, perhaps even decades? After all, philanthropy can lay the groundwork for breakthroughs that donors may never live to see. Fifth, what kind of impact do you want to make? You could spread your resources widely or focus on a single goal – a“moonshot” with a low likelihood of success, such as curing cancer or Alzheimer's. Though risky, supporting groundbreaking research could have far-reaching consequences. Sixth, should you collaborate with governments or operate independently? There is a strong case for working with policymakers to provide public goods like education, health care, and infrastructure. After all, government budgets dwarf even the wealthiest philanthropist's resources. For example, while Bill Gates's estimated net worth is $105bn, it amounts to less than six months of California's annual state budget. Seventh, how should you approach innovation? Should you harness technology and data to make your organisation operate more efficiently and maximise the impact of your giving? Alternatively, you could use your philanthropy to drive the development of revolutionary technologies designed to address societal challenges at scale. Eighth, should you partner with fellow philanthropists or go it alone? Pooling capital could enhance your impact, but working independently allows you to avoid disagreements over who and what to fund. That said, confronting complex challenges rarely allows for a solitary approach. Ninth, should your giving be public or private? Both approaches offer unique advantages. Public actions, such as signing the Giving Pledge, facilitate the sharing of best practices, inspire others to support important causes, and enable you to compare your efforts to your peers through platforms like GuideStar. On the other hand, private giving is arguably the purest form of altruism.“Stealth” philanthropy also provides the freedom for trial and error without the pressure of public scrutiny. Although experimentation is essential for tackling complicated problems, public failures can invite criticism and be dismissed as a waste of money. Tenth, how should you structure your giving? Financial support can take many forms beyond traditional cash donations. While grant-making remains the most common approach, there are compelling alternatives. Loans, for example, can be structured with extended maturity periods and below-market interest rates, encouraging discipline and accountability by requiring recipients to repay the funds. Eleventh, should you establish a board of directors to oversee your philanthropic endeavour, and if so, will you reserve seats for family and friends? Opting for a more formal structure – for example, by designating permanent seats for prominent public figures, such as religious leaders or university presidents – can help ensure impartial oversight. Lastly, what is your exit strategy? Are you planning to wind down your philanthropic efforts by a specific date, or will you establish mechanisms to sustain them indefinitely? The“run down the clock” approach is exemplified by businessman and philanthropist Chuck Feeney, who donated billions of dollars to academic and technical institutions during his lifetime and died in 2023 after successfully giving away his money. By contrast, the Rhodes Trust and Nobel Prize are designed to exist in perpetuity. Whether you're a wealthy donor, a politician, a CEO, or simply a concerned parent, the call to philanthropy resonates with us all. I hope these questions encourage deeper reflection on how to maximise the effectiveness of generosity. – Project Syndicate l Dambisa Moyo, an international economist, is the author of four New York Times bestselling books, including Edge of Chaos: Why Democracy Is Failing to Deliver Economic Growth – and How to Fix It. MENAFN29122024000067011011ID1109040163 Legal Disclaimer: MENAFN provides the information “as is” without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the provider above.No. 11 Tennessee crushes UTEP to enhance CFP chances

Florida pizza delivery worker allegedly stabs pregnant customer after $2 tip

CHARLEBOIS: Canada’s top food stories of 2024, a mix of triumphs and setbacks